Whatever the High Court decides in March 2027, the case exposes a gap in design rather than a rogue order.

A fund running two different consent systems for two sets of investors in the same scheme was never defensible, and a 15% shareholding test was always going to miss real conflicts. SEBI is right to fix both problems. That said, three practical questions still need answers before the framework can work as intended.

SEBI’s changes are not two individual ease-of-doing-business measures. They redefine the line between an active unitholder base and a passive one, at the precise moment a REIT or InvIT switches hands.